Towerridge, Inc., Sued as United States of America for the Benefit of Towerridge, Inc., and v. T.A.O., Inc., and Mid-Continent Casualty Co., And

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that because the prejudgment interest award was governed by federal law, a district court is free to choose any interest rate which would fairly compensate the plaintiff for the delay in the receipt of payment including the current state interest rate
• stating that federal courts have the inherent power “to sanction conduct that abuses the judicial process”
• recognizing that because the prejudgment interest award was governed by federal law, a district court is free to choose any interest rate which would fairly compensate the plaintiff for the delay in the receipt of payment including the current state interest rate
• upholding admission of evidence that government settled plaintiff’s claims for damages caused by government’s delay because relevant to show defendant acted in bad faith
• “Though statements in briefs or during oral argument are not necessarily binding admissions, we may consider them as such at our discretion.”
• “Rule 408 does not require the exclusion of evidence regarding the settlement of a claim different from the one litigated, though admission of such evidence may nonetheless implicate the same concerns of prejudice and deterrence of settlements which underlie Rule 408.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).